Mitchell Johnson vs Allan Davidson

I showed my white gramps who had the great privilege of seeing Allan Davidson bowl & bat in 1963 here in England. We where just watching back Johnosn spell in the 2nd test & his batting in the 3rd test.

And boyyyy old guy was going off & was adamant that Johnson has better attributes than Davo based on what he has seen without a doubt.

I personally would say i'd wait until the Ashes this summer is over to start making comparison with Johnson to Davo, but i always put eye-witness over stats & i rate my gramps views on cricket very highly even though he is 77. The way he was going off prompted me to bring up this thread this early.

I showed my white gramps who had the great privilege of seeing Allan Davidson bowl & bat in 1963 here in England. We where just watching back Johnosn spell in the 2nd test & his batting in the 3rd test.

And boyyyy old guy was going off & was adamant that Johnson has better attributes than Davo based on what he has seen without a doubt.

I personally would say i'd wait until the Ashes this summer is over to start making comparison with Johnson to Davo, but i always put eye-witness over stats & i rate my gramps views on cricket very highly even though he is 77. The way he was going off prompted me to bring up this thread this early.

So post away killas...

Even if you look at the stats, there's something to be made of the comparison...

Davidson averaged 25 with the bat - including 5 fifties. And 20 with the ball, including 14 five wicket hauls and 6 other four wicket hauls.

Johnson has just shy of half as many tests - but averages 35 with the bat (3 fiftes and a century) and 28 with the ball (2 five wicket hauls and 8 other four wicket hauls).

On paper it looks like Davidson was streets ahead as a bowler - yet Johnson has a better strike rate (56-62) - so in terms of getting a wicket, your gramps might be on to something there. But Davidson reigned supreme on economy - only 1.97 runs per over.

It looks like Johnson is ahead of Davidson in terms of runs scored and number of wickets taken - but Davidsons ability to tie up an end makes him one of the greats as a left arm quick.

I never saw Davidson play live - only highlights, and he's a superb cricketer. At this stage it looks like Mitchell Johnson is "of the same ilk" in terms of ability to score runs and take wickets as a left hand fast man.

Dennis Lillee's got to be happy that he tagged Mitchell as a "once in a generation cricketer".

Not in the class of Davidson who is considered one of the best catches, but yes nothing wrong with MJs fielding, although I don't recall saying there was?

Didn't mean to imply that you were. Just the language I used I guess :"nothing wrong with" rather than "he's pretty good too". You know that kind of relaxed, understated expression. This comparison is difficult as bowlers don't tend to spend much time in gully these days, but I just have a suspicion (based on nothing more than what I've seen of his general fielding), that Mitch would be very effective there also.

I certainly wouldn't say not in the same class as I would need a first hand (or even second hand) account of watching both of them move, catch and throw. [calling Richie Benaud!]

Didn't mean to imply that you were. Just the language I used I guess :"nothing wrong with" rather than "he's pretty good too". You know that kind of relaxed, understated expression. This comparison is difficult as bowlers don't tend to spend much time in gully these days, but I just have a suspicion (based on nothing more than what I've seen of his general fielding), that Mitch would be very effective there also.

I certainly wouldn't say not in the same class as I would need a first hand (or even second hand) account of watching both of them move, catch and throw. [calling Richie Benaud!]

Probable that both are atleast in the same ballpark.

Yes it is surprising they no longer field there, Joel Garner was the best I ever saw in the position

The main reason I guess for them to field Garner at Gully was the 5 slips, 2 gullies kinda mentallity they had at the time required fast bowlers to field in catching positions, and those giant hands never let anything through.